Huh.

I am saddened by what Snyder went through and what his family is going through now but the Paul campaign ought to pay and maybe learn a lesson from this tragedy.

Saying 'tough break' just doesn't cut it. 

by Kathlyn Stone (46 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 690 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jul 5, 2008 at 11:30:08 PM

  (0+)

A $35 million dollar operation can surely afford a few hundred thousand for the family of the man who made it happen. It wouldn't even contradict their beliefs, as it would be them doing it and not government. The Libertarian creed is just selfishness dressed up as philosophy.

Great article, Rob. Short, sweet, and socko!

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 5:14:07 AM

  (0+)

in such a terrible tragedy as this. He is not a martyr to the Libertarian cause, because their position is that there would be no such outcome under a Libertarian system. He has, however, quite involuntarily, put forth the strongest argument I've ever heard against Libertarianism.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 12:52:37 PM

  (0+)

that more media, particularly on the left, have not picked up on this tragic example of all that's wrong with Paul's libertarian vision.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 2:08:36 PM

  (0+)

Nothing wrong with Ron Paul's libratarian vision; however, there is something wrong with the healthcare situation....and socialization is not the answer.

 See "Sick in America" below:

Part 1 

Part 2 

by seth mcconnell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:49:18 AM

  (0+)

Of course Kent Snyder put off having his "chest cold" or "bronchitis" or whatever minimzation he used because he didn't have health insurance that would have provided him a diagnosis and treatment before it became fatal.  As would have an $80 tooth extraction for a 12 y.o. boy who later developed an abcessed infection that spread to his brain, required 10's of thousands of dollars in state funded care and, presumably, a state funded burial after he died.  His family, living in poverty, had no health insurance either.  And, again, today on ABC's "This Week" presidential candidate of this Social Darwinist Party (SDP), the Libertarians, former republican representative Bob Barr spoke derisively of "socialized medicine."

Some of my best and most learned friends are Libertarians, willing members of this SDP, who have never been able to reasonably and realisiticaly respond to just the scenario that Mr. Snyder's unnecessary and tragic death represent.  Their own humanity betrays them when confronted with sick children, or good citizens, or those unable to choose "freedom" when preyed upon by cruel fate.  Even the most ardent SDP member stammers, hedges, umms and ahhs, trying to find answers for those questions.

With 47 million people and growing w/o health insurance, an economy mimicing the Great Depression of 1933 when over 25% of the population was out of work and current unemployment growing, it is more important than ever that we think instead of "survival of the fitest," and make the common good our guide in decision making.

 Perhaps if that was the rule of all political parties, Kent Snyder's wife and children wouldn't be facing a $400,000 insult on top of their injury.

by Mike Shelby (13 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 2:51:39 PM

  (0+)

(We all do)

I see no flaws. I see no shining example of why libertarianism failed. The great Kent Snyder was not living within the system for which he was fighting. Within that system, skilled and caring doctors like Congressman Paul would be able to care for the sick with no concern for the federal government or its destructive policies. All I see is that the system set up by the government's central planners has failed a great man.

I doubt Kent Snyder would want your pity. He would most certainly not want you claiming his death to be proof that the cause he fought for all of his life was wrong. The man poured his heart, soul, and eventually his life into this campaign for liberty. The debt he accrued in a fiat currency of a private central bank he advocated against is completely irrelevant. His life was about much more than dollars and cents - it was about real "sense".

So while you may discount his (and all freedom loving peoples') achievements in reaching many minds over the past few years, you benefit greatly from the ideals he held as paramount. OpEdNews, despite the censorship and sometimes editorial tyranny, is a free market for ideas. You are able to keep this site running because it is an open and free system. Because of this, readership increases and the money Google pays for you the ads on the sides of articles rises accordingly. In an open and free market, good ideas, products, and systems of government are possible and profitable.

I would probably feel more outrage about this article and all that it implies, but I have become somewhat numb to the hypocricy of many of the OEN regulars. I don't agree with the editorial staff on much concerning the political realm, but this article is really a shining example to me of why the "Left" is assuredly not right. 

RIP Kent Snyder, Hero of Liberty

by Ferdinand (17 articles, 4 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 259 comments) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 3:20:38 PM

  (0+)

I am kind off an expert on the matters of hypocricy and here there is none. Not much of empathy maybe. But bygones be bygones, a man died at 49 while vehemently opposing a simple mechanism which if in effect might have saved him and others. Moreover, he left his family in debt and his parthaigenossen cannot even take care of that. Speaking of compassion.

Libertarians deliberately exploit the problems in this society to prevent it from becoming a nation. Their perception about society is medieval. It does seem that they also practice their medieval approaches among themselves, otherwise people would push the unfortunate man to get help when necessary instead of literally expiring.

So, no hypocricy here. As I said, maybe not much of an empathy. But libertarians do not want empathy, right? So why mentioning it? Fair game.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 3:40:38 PM

  (0+)

We are not all logical, cold, and heartless. In fact, many libertarians I know believe they way they do because they truly and honestly believe that it is the most compassionate way to live. It is not a system of live and let die (or the US's policy of live and make others die), but rather a way to really live and let live - through freedom.

And why do you speak as if we are your enemies who need to be attacked and deserve no compassion? Kent Snyder wanted us out of all foreign entanglements and fought for a sound economy, doing everything he could to see a peaceful and prosperous America. Is this not what you want?

We are all in this together, trying to make the world a better place. Kent  believed this could best be done through the promotion of freedom. The noble man sacrificed his life for this vision. Are you so cold that you cannot recognize a hero when you see one? 

(People had better learn that it is not a good idea to anger libertarians. We can be loyal friends or great enemies. I prefer the former.)

by Ferdinand (17 articles, 4 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 259 comments) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 4:14:57 PM

  (0+)

just unfortunate.  In the 15th Centrury during the Great German  Peasant wars the Anabaptists  lead by Munzer did the same thing: they closed their cities to  all fractions and pronounced that they only had discovered freedom  in isolation and untangled from the outside. Well, the warring fractions united against them and .. that was the end of the Germna libertarians. I  do not want this to happen here. I just want people to acknowledge that there is no such thing as 'freedom for us', no  such thing as ' no taxes', no such thing as ' conglomerate of communities'. Nations are  molded. The libertarians are surely one of the components of this nation, people belonging to them canbe honest and passionate but it does not matter: this is the wrong cause.  I am very sorry.  I like some of them. I like their fight against the war. But whenever I hear ' live in freedom' I remember that 'freedom is different for different people.'

Otherwise I just wanted to defend Rob from the accusations of hypocricy.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 5:16:59 PM

  (0+)

for all of us.

Many theories break down in practice.  And living too much inside your own head can be dangerous. I wonder if this dedicated man let others know what was going on?

by Laudyms (0 articles, 1142 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 708 comments [138 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 3:24:00 PM

  (0+)

Big Government is a "trickle-down" theory.  Not everyone wants to be a serf of government when they finally get free of the chains of corporatism.

This essay was petty and cruel.  If you had a more noble spirit, then you would have realized that he died fighting for what he believed in, and WHY he fought.

There's still time for you...... keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.  They are not as different as you think.

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 184 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 3:42:05 PM

  (0+)

Why is $400,000 being raised for a dead man for "medical bills" when he didn't get medical care (according to the premise of the story?)

Why is the family obligated to pay these debts to hospitals?  How will the government pay these bills any better (another premise of the story?)

 Maybe we can have Elvis pay his bills.  Elvis makes $20,000 an hour in royalties.

We keep paying the dead, that is why we never have money for the living.

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 184 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 3:50:39 PM

  (0+)

I think Rob made two points. Health insurance is a necessity. And libertarians, or at least some who define their causes, do not make good decisions just because they espouse the liberty to do so. And maybe a little extra point could be that this is a human tragedy among many others and we needn't bother to make political points out of it.

by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1851 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 4:06:52 PM

  (0+)

History is all about the decisions of people who are now dead.  Politics is partially about analyzing history and the present to decide what the best way is going forward.

I wrote an article strongly criticizing Tim Russert after he died based on his impact on events and history. I got many of the same criticisms from people that you just made here. The proper analysis of the impact of big players on the political scene is way, WAY too important to give way to genteelness.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 4:26:45 PM

  (0+)

I went to your last article about this - and I couldn't agree with you more. I think this is actually a very dangerous thing to do, and the first person that jumped to my mind in this type of scenario was Reagan. We not only do ourselves a great disservice by lying to ourselves about the real historical impact of these powerful figures, but it can also shove the resulting problems right under the rug; often causing us to repeat these mistakes, or a failure to recognize the root of problems (removing the place from which resolve must begin).

by Heather Meyer (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 6:26:02 PM

  (0+)

While I am generally on agreement with most of what the libertarians have to offer in terms of civil liberties, freedom from government interference and no foreign wars of aggression it is on the economic principles where I split with them.

Let's face it, the 'free market' is utopian and in order for it to function you have to completely eliminate human nature, not all who pursue their own self interests are doing so in a moral manner, much of it is just greed and in their economic dogma the libertarians are better off believing in the tooth fairy than anything remotely approaching a free market where all will work in perfect equilibrium. It aint' gonna happen and anyone who believes that in spite of the damning body of evidence to the contrary is out there in Galt's Gulch prospecting for fool's gold.

I have found much admirable in the Ron Paul movement and consider them to be crucial allies in the fight against this growing police state but these are the things that need to be worked out after the greater menace of fascism has been beaten back.

Too bad abou the guy, he did great work but in the end he was failed not only by a system gone to hell but by a stubborn insistence in a utopian ideology as well.

The essential human services should NEVER be allowed to be privatized where they are at the mercy of the greedheads and the moneychangers who have bribed their way into the temple.

In a perfect world the commons would be protected and markets would be free so that well intentioned entrepreneurs would be free to reap the rewards for their hard work but in 2008 that perfect world is as much a fantasy as the mythical American dream.

Just my two cents

EE

by Ed Encho (12 articles, 20 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 438 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 4:24:08 PM

  (0+)

He died at 49 of pneumonia? Had to be sick of something far more serious. Maybe he could'nt get insurance because of a pre-existing condition?  Paul did'nt  help/advise on medical insurance for someone this high in his staff?

more to this story, imo. Good luck to his family. 

by gordon nelson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 4:58:33 PM

  (0+)

The REAL sad truth here is that this is an all too common story for Americans everywhere. Who can afford health insurance when the cost of just surviving is a struggle in itself? We have seniors here who are choosing to go without food so they can buy their medications, and many of them have cheaper med-costs because they have Medicare for God sake!

It's absolutely appalling that the campaign he worked so hard for wouldn't help his family out with his debt, especially when Libertarian ideals working depend upon a charitable citizenry! I suppose after the public and Paul's supporters have felt sorry enough to pay-off that debt, the campaign will say that it knew it could rely on their ideals working? It’s completely shameful. What about the hundreds of thousands of other Americans suffering the same exact hardship, who aren’t lucky enough to be connected to such a well known figure?

by Heather Meyer (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 5:14:04 PM

  (0+)

Ron Paul supporters did not give their money to the campaign so that it could be redistributed to charitable causes. This is the same policy he would have with your tax dollars. Supporters will likely organize something separate from the campaign, and probably would not mind the campaign giving their money to such a good cause, but Ron Paul could not possibly take such an action.

Kent Snyder created value in this world. His family will not suffer from his legacy of liberty. 

by Ferdinand (17 articles, 4 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 259 comments) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 5:24:55 PM

  (0+)

...in accidental error. I appreciate you pointing it out so I can correct myself.

I wouldn't expect ANY campaign to do such a thing, and as far as I know campaign funds cannot legally be used in that way either. I really meant to say that Paul himself could've chosen to be that charitable person (personal donation), campaign workers could have held the fundraising drive within the campaign (like some people do in the workplace with the loss of a co-worker), and they could make an appeal to their supporters through their own website (the only one I see is in Paul's statement asking for donations to the "Kent Snyder Memorial Scholarship Fund" - not the outstanding debt). Instead, somebody built a fundraising blog to appeal to the public in general.

Why didn't the members of the campaign choose to take on the responsibility of freeing this man's family from this hardship, when he was so dedicated to their cause? And why should this problem that so many Americans suffer from, be left up to how well the public knows that family, the public's empathy level, and ability to donate something?

by Heather Meyer (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 6:06:39 PM

  (0+)

a month after the campaign ended, he needed medical care, got it, but couldn't pay for it because he didn't have health insurance. That is not the government's fault. It is the fault of our legislators, because the US is the only first world nation/member of the G8 that does not provide health care to all, certainly a LIbertarian approved circumstance. 

tragic that he was a victim

tragic that you don't get that this is what a libertarian world does to people.

Libertarianism is an un-tested theory. Thank God. 

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 7:23:06 PM

  (0+)

these kinds of problems or dilemmas.

Someone above spoke of Libertarianism/Laissez-Faireism being an unachievable utopian ideal. I agree that along with Communism, this is so. In fact, the world's countries are heading from both directions toward a happy medium that seeks to marry capitalism with universal healthcare as well as retirement and unemployment and disability safety nets.

Europe, which is well on its way to having great versions of all of these things, is starting to really kick our (the US') butts in virtually every economic, education, healthcare and happiness measurement of which you can think.

Republicans, who believe in less government and less taxes than do Democrats, have controlled the White House and thus veto power over congressional spending and other actions, for 70% of the last 40 years. We are worse off as a country in virtually every way than we were back in 1968.

Heading towards less government is absolutely the wrong track.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 6:54:39 PM

  (0+)

This is VERY well said.

I think the main problem we have in the States is a general inability to see the overall picture. Health care is an excellent example of this because when most Americans think about the taxes being paid into a universal health care system, they don't take into account the money being saved overall. For reasons such as, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Then there's the fact that when we pay premiums it's based on prior health conditions (if they don’t disqualify us all together); and it can also be hyper-inflated by different components (like hospitals) over charging for things like "administrative fees" and pharmaceuticals produced by that privatized industry too.

When you add it all up we pay far more per capita for our health care than any other country in the world; http://www.allcountries.org/health/spending_on_health_a_global_overview.html yet the quality of our health care ranks 37th in the world http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
and our actual health is ranking 72nd : http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html (This last link it the most revealing)

Is paying the most (while gettting the least) really what we want to be #1 in when it comes to health care?

by Heather Meyer (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 8:17:02 PM

  (0+)

why not criticize someone that can defend themself? I worked many years and I have Medicare. I am very pleased with it and I try not to use it carelessly. If changes are implemented by the saviour Obama I just hope My Medicare isnt changed or the funding jeopardized by more trillions spent on the wars that the demo´s have wholeheartedly supported, and I am sure Obama will continue to wage and fund. Any new programs must be funded, but the cupboard is bare. Borrow, tax and spend has gotten us into the fiscal mess that we are in. The people are in debt, most have no savings. The flight of manufacturing has gutted this nation. I dont agree with all of Dr. Paul´s ideas,but his economic savvy is unmatched by any of the candidates. We need jobs, sound money and freedom to do our business without being taxed into oblivion and regulated by burocrats that couldnt find their posteriors with both hands.  If a shot is fired by the crazies to start war with Iran all of this talk will be moot. Just be careful what You wish for (Obama), because You just might get it.

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 7:27:06 PM

  (0+)

Karl Marx in Volume I of Das Kapital details the conditions the working class in England endured under unbridled capitalism such as the libertarians seek.  The picture is ugly, and true, backed up by numerous other sources.  The primary reason that America enjoyed a prosperous middle class was the formation, often violently, of unions, and FDR's final mandate that Congress recognize the right to unionize legislatively.  The entrepreneurs, so highly thought of in the libertarian movement, simply did not give their extra profit to their workers.  The nature of the competitive process precludes even the most generous of employers from giving higher wages than his or her competitors give, as such a gift raises prices and puts that enterprise at a competitive disadvantage.  In short, economically, everything that the libertarians want has already been tried and failed.

Yet, I am a registered libertarian.  I am so because of the vast scope of the civil and political rights we have lost in the last century.  Without first electing a libertarian candidate to restore those rights, progressives cannot change this country without resorting to violence.  Only through the restoration of our natural rights; that is, all rights not directly given to the federal government under the Constitution, can peaceful change be made possible.

One small example is the CIA's role in using drug and gun running to finance most of its operations outside of the purview of Congressional oversight.  Progressives cannot peacefully engage such a rogue agency within the present context of our government since the disappearance of progressive leaders could be the only result.  However, the legalization of drugs, and a foreign policy of non-intervention, would make the CIA a dissoluble, vestigial organ of government, no longer a threat to peaceful progressive change.

Ultimately, Marx was correct that some form of communal living would develop because of the collapse of capitalism.  We see this more and more as peak oil demonstrates the need for local production of food and minor industrial items.  However, we have also seen before the potential for collectivism to create its own house of horrors.  I, therefore, propose a new American political philosophy founded upon both our traditional ideals of personal political and civil freedom as espoused by the libertarians, maintaining the right to own small businesses and work in the professions without licensing by the state, and the collectivist ideals of Marx and Engels, where communal farming and commodity manufacturing would occur locally.  The people they serve would own the multi-nationals, to the extent they could not be localized, and their owners would elect their BOD’s and CEO’s.

Again, of course, none of this could ever happen peacefully without first electing a libertarian candidate.

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 7:29:14 PM

  (0+)

Business and capitalism in and of itself is not evil, the evil comes when greed pops up its ugly little head. And we being just human beings all fail in some way or another. I find it hard sometimes to hate the greed but not the greedy.

Very nicely put WML. I could not go to school, I was working in the factories as a young man, so putting fancy words together is not easy for Me. I think You got My sentiments there right on the kershnoot.

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 9:55:00 PM

  (0+)

Being of a similar age, also without health care, and agreeing with much of Dr. Paul's beliefs about what is wrong with this country... I disagree strongly with him about the health care issue.... As do most of the health care workers in America; who have seen all the problems first hand and know the whole system stinks to high heaven. 

We already have an utterly screwed-up system. The only way to fix it and make it "honest" and at least half-way efficient is to go universal not for profit.... Heck, 60% of it is already paid by the government now... We have the absolute worst of both worlds. And even Congressman Paul knows that changing that figure downwards is a total and utter non-starter politically.

So although he is usually a truth teller... Face it he is being disingenuous on this issue.  

So what do the Libertarians expect to do, anyway?... Tell Grandma she is off of Medicare, let her die of COPD in the gutter? Lets get real. There is only one rational answer for the hideous mess that is U.S. healthcare....

Get out the pitchforks and torches, and let's hang the private insurance execs on the nearest oak tree: Their crime, for which there is no defense, is "giving Capitalism a bad name" . Send them to the back of the unemployment line... And save people like this brilliant 49 year old guy from themselves.

Using the Kucinich model... This also solves once and for all the problems of Doctor's getting m-p insurance, and eliminates the 300% or higher blood-sucking profits the pharms get. All at a cost no more that what the country as a whole is paying now... Not to mention the huge burden it will take off  of our remaining manufacturing base, allowing them to compete with foreign companies that are not stuck have to pay their employee's health care costs.  

People, solutions to tough problems really don't get any better than this ;) 

And those who WANT to pay to see doctors still can... No one will stop you if your that stupid, lol. Just don't try to stop my family from getting decent health care because you think it's not "American" enough for you.

by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 360 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 6, 2008 at 8:36:00 PM

  (0+)

Still another in an endless string of diatribes calling for "Universal Healthcare", or socialized medicine! One only needs to know that the amount of socialization of our healthcare that has taken place in the last 50 years has made the cost of healthcare so expensive that no one except the very rich can afford it. True free market incentives that would have improved the quality of healthcare and keep the costs competitive were stamped out of existence long ago. The problems connected with socialized medicine that other countries are experiencing are not being reported on by the MSM, and our present system is being termed "a failure of the free market!" Calling our system "free market" is absurd!

by Craig Thomas (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:19:53 PM

  (0+)

Libertarians claim to be fiscally responsible yet this guy was in debt. Not very responsible.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 10, 2008 at 9:10:36 PM

  (0+)

Then watch the following six-part series entitled Sick in America.

Part 1 

by seth mcconnell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:06:53 PM

  (0+)